Many Californians live in California because they love the natural beauty that surrounds them at every turn. The beaches, the mountains and the desert are, in my mind, some of California’s greatest assets. There is nothing quite as satisfying as waking up on a morning like today and seeing the crisp outline of the San Bernardino mountain range capped in snow while enjoying 70 degree weather.
If we are being honest, the weather and natural beauty are probably some of the only things keeping many Californians from fleeing the state because of high taxes, unemployment, an inept state government and an oppressive business environment. It would make sense then, that we should try to protect those natural resources at all costs. This is the garbage that the opponents of Prop 23 would have you believe, where in today’s world everything not “green” might as well be labeled “poison”.
Take a look at just what Prop 23 is up against. In 2006, the California legislature passed AB 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. The mere name of the bill should give you the idea that they were trying to compensate for something with that lofty title, namely- common sense. What AB 32 did was create a government entity with incredible power not only to levy regulations on businesses that emit greenhouse gasses but also to create cap-and-trade laws to slow CO2 emissions.
The grand plan for AB 32 is to return California to 1990 levels of emissions over the course of 14 years, making 2020 the target year to achieve environmental nirvana. Obviously, reducing emissions isn’t a terrible idea… in a vacuum. But we don’t live in a vacuum and other factors have to be taken into account, mainly the economic cost and the loss of freedom that would come from turning over something so arbitrary as ‘the right to emit’ to the jurisdiction of the government.
Start with the title. I’m not a scientist, but I have read enough over the years to understand that global warming (and cooling) has been happening since the beginning of time regardless of CO2 emissions. I also know that the scientists who are hired by ‘green’ companies to prove global warming might not have the purest intentions based on where their funding comes from. With the incredible push in the last ten years towards ‘clean’ and ‘green’ jobs, often at the expense of politically unfavorable jobs in the industrial sector, I have a hard time believing that in the future, with AB 32 in full swing, a job that isn’t ‘green’ will struggle to survive.
The problem is that green jobs created simply because they are ‘green’ are not sustainable. Why does it matter if a job is green or not? The mere fact that the government has to categorize jobs as green means that they are giving it some intrinsic value that it lacked in the first place. In this case, that value is profitability. In a healthy economy, jobs exist because they are making someone besides worker money. Green jobs very rarely make money. Green jobs are essentially environmental welfare- a money sink that takes in far more cash than it could ever hope to create. Look at the process: the government takes money from non-green businesses in the form of fees and taxes, and then distributes it to consumers as a tax credit for installing ‘green’ appliances or to an overseas developer to manufacture clean power sources. Remind me again how this benefits Californians?
The negative impact that AB 32 will have on businesses when it is fully implemented is staggering. A 2009 Cal State Sacramento study predicted that small businesses will pay an average of $46,961 and families will face annual cost increase of $3,857 because of AB 32. The combined annual business loss would be $182.6 billion, or, as the study recommends, 1.1 million lost jobs.
These are daunting predictions to be sure. Frightening, in fact. The mere fact that legislators in Sacramento have had these numbers in hand for over a year and are still fighting Prop 23 is an indication of just how entrenched in the ‘green’ myth they have become. Prop 23 would suspend these regulations until the statewide economy improves to a point where it could support environmental welfare, which, at least in regards to AB 32, should be never.
Daniel Greenfield aptly sums up the prevailing madness and denial as it played out recently in the sentencing of Times Square would-be jihad bomber Faisal Shahzad. "It's About The Jihad, Stupid," by Daniel Greenfield in Eurasia Review, October 11:
So at long last the case of the Times Square Bomber is over and we heard it straight from the camel's mouth, that Faisal Shahzad wasn't upset over his mortgage or angry over Obamacare-- he was what he had always been, a Muslim terrorist trying to kill infidels in the name of Islam.After the attempted attacked, the liberal media insisted on painting Faisal Shahzad as a tragic victim of the mortgage crisis, suggesting that the whole "car bomb near the Lion King" matter could have been averted with more government bailouts of borrowers who weren't paying their bills. That is how the axis of liberal media responds to every act of Muslim terrorism, by blaming Republicans and offering their own policies as the solution.
Worried about airplane hijackings? Elect us, and we'll make the Muslim world love us with hearty doses of appeasement and long deep bows. Afraid of shootings at army bases, vote the right way and we'll pull out all the troops so no more kindly Muslim psychiatrists come down with secondhand PTSD. Worried about car bombs, with more socialism no one will want to car bomb Times Square anymore.
But then Faisal Shahzad ruined everything by opening his mouth. "This is but one life," he said. "If I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah, fighting this cause, defending our lands, making the word of Allah supreme over any religion or system."
The Judge did her usual liberal shtick, foolishly lecturing Shahzad on how moderate Islam is. She suggested that Shahzad should "spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Koran wants you to kill lots of people".
But who knows better what Islam really represents, Faisal Shahzad or Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum? Clearly Miriam thinks she knows better, as Time Magazine and Newsweek and the New York Times insist that they know Islam, better than the Muslims who keep misunderstanding what Islam really is.
But Shahzad wasn't quoting some wacky preacher living in a cave somewhere, he was quoting the Koran. The same book that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested might be illegal to burn. The same book that Democrats and many Republicans insist is really a beautiful book that teaches tolerance. Unlike Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Faisal Shahzad didn't need to spend a whole lot of time thinking about whether the Koran really wants him to kill lots of people. He could just read it...
"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9
That is the source of Faisal Shahzad's justification for his Jihad.
But surely this lovely verse has nothing to do with violence, you might say. It just means that Muslims should go out and persuade people that Islam is the only true religion. That sounds convincing, doesn't it?
Except Koran 61 is titled, "Al-Saff" or "Ranks, Battle Array". That title comes from verse 61:4 which proclaims, "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array". The next two verses go on to curse the Jews, like Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, for their unbelief.
Two verses down from Faisal Shahzad's quote, the Koran promises Muslims a way to save themselves from hell. What's their "Get Out of Hell" free card? "That ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons." The Arabic word used for "strive" is, "watujahidoona" or "You will make Jihad".
Yes. It's the Jihad, stupid.
Faisal Shahzad didn't lose his home to foreclosure because of the injustice of the American banking system. He gave up his home to foreclosure because he was using that money to build a bomb instead. This wasn't some sort of radicalization in response to failure, it was a plan all along.
He led the facade of a normal life. He got a good job and a mortgage. He had a line of credit. And he had Facebook. And then right after he got US citizenship, he quit his job, went to Pakistan for explosives training, and the Times Square Car bombing was set into motion. He didn't lose his home, he abandoned it. The home and the job, and the rest of the facade of the American Dream was a sham, a disguise. Just like the 9/11 hijackers.
Faisal Shahzad was carrying out the words of the Koran, to use his property and person to carry on the Jihad against the unbelievers. His property and money were assets in a religious war.
The media refuses to understand that. Even the judge sentencing him refuses to understand that. Instead Faisal Shahzad is being treated like some sort of stupid child who doesn't know his own religion, even though he has practiced it all his life and probably knows the entire Koran by heart.
Isn't presuming to know what Islam is about better than Muslims do, the same kind of arrogance toward the Muslim world that liberals routinely accuse America of? And doesn't that drive Muslims toward greater acts of terror just to define clearly what Islam really is? In the words of the Ayatollah Khomeni; "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!"
That is the great liberal farce, in which liberals begin by lecturing Americans on what Islam really is, and then conclude by lecturing Muslims on what Islam really is. And the Muslims laugh in their faces, when they aren't blowing them off. Liberals haven't convinced very many Americans that Islam is a religion of peace, and they certainly aren't going to convince very many Muslims....
autosport.com - F1 <b>News</b>: Tweaks to be made to Korean track
Korean Grand Prix organisers are making minor modifications to the new Formula 1 track on Friday night following complaints from drivers about potential trouble spots on the new Yeongam circuit.
Surprise: Fox <b>News</b> signs Juan Williams to new $2 million deal <b>...</b>
Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. ...
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Jobs comments on Java-Mac OS X situation
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Jobs comments on Java-Mac OS X situation. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 22, 2010 at 10:52am. image Apple's announcement that they would be ceasing future development of their ...
eric seiger eric seiger
Many Californians live in California because they love the natural beauty that surrounds them at every turn. The beaches, the mountains and the desert are, in my mind, some of California’s greatest assets. There is nothing quite as satisfying as waking up on a morning like today and seeing the crisp outline of the San Bernardino mountain range capped in snow while enjoying 70 degree weather.
If we are being honest, the weather and natural beauty are probably some of the only things keeping many Californians from fleeing the state because of high taxes, unemployment, an inept state government and an oppressive business environment. It would make sense then, that we should try to protect those natural resources at all costs. This is the garbage that the opponents of Prop 23 would have you believe, where in today’s world everything not “green” might as well be labeled “poison”.
Take a look at just what Prop 23 is up against. In 2006, the California legislature passed AB 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. The mere name of the bill should give you the idea that they were trying to compensate for something with that lofty title, namely- common sense. What AB 32 did was create a government entity with incredible power not only to levy regulations on businesses that emit greenhouse gasses but also to create cap-and-trade laws to slow CO2 emissions.
The grand plan for AB 32 is to return California to 1990 levels of emissions over the course of 14 years, making 2020 the target year to achieve environmental nirvana. Obviously, reducing emissions isn’t a terrible idea… in a vacuum. But we don’t live in a vacuum and other factors have to be taken into account, mainly the economic cost and the loss of freedom that would come from turning over something so arbitrary as ‘the right to emit’ to the jurisdiction of the government.
Start with the title. I’m not a scientist, but I have read enough over the years to understand that global warming (and cooling) has been happening since the beginning of time regardless of CO2 emissions. I also know that the scientists who are hired by ‘green’ companies to prove global warming might not have the purest intentions based on where their funding comes from. With the incredible push in the last ten years towards ‘clean’ and ‘green’ jobs, often at the expense of politically unfavorable jobs in the industrial sector, I have a hard time believing that in the future, with AB 32 in full swing, a job that isn’t ‘green’ will struggle to survive.
The problem is that green jobs created simply because they are ‘green’ are not sustainable. Why does it matter if a job is green or not? The mere fact that the government has to categorize jobs as green means that they are giving it some intrinsic value that it lacked in the first place. In this case, that value is profitability. In a healthy economy, jobs exist because they are making someone besides worker money. Green jobs very rarely make money. Green jobs are essentially environmental welfare- a money sink that takes in far more cash than it could ever hope to create. Look at the process: the government takes money from non-green businesses in the form of fees and taxes, and then distributes it to consumers as a tax credit for installing ‘green’ appliances or to an overseas developer to manufacture clean power sources. Remind me again how this benefits Californians?
The negative impact that AB 32 will have on businesses when it is fully implemented is staggering. A 2009 Cal State Sacramento study predicted that small businesses will pay an average of $46,961 and families will face annual cost increase of $3,857 because of AB 32. The combined annual business loss would be $182.6 billion, or, as the study recommends, 1.1 million lost jobs.
These are daunting predictions to be sure. Frightening, in fact. The mere fact that legislators in Sacramento have had these numbers in hand for over a year and are still fighting Prop 23 is an indication of just how entrenched in the ‘green’ myth they have become. Prop 23 would suspend these regulations until the statewide economy improves to a point where it could support environmental welfare, which, at least in regards to AB 32, should be never.
Daniel Greenfield aptly sums up the prevailing madness and denial as it played out recently in the sentencing of Times Square would-be jihad bomber Faisal Shahzad. "It's About The Jihad, Stupid," by Daniel Greenfield in Eurasia Review, October 11:
So at long last the case of the Times Square Bomber is over and we heard it straight from the camel's mouth, that Faisal Shahzad wasn't upset over his mortgage or angry over Obamacare-- he was what he had always been, a Muslim terrorist trying to kill infidels in the name of Islam.After the attempted attacked, the liberal media insisted on painting Faisal Shahzad as a tragic victim of the mortgage crisis, suggesting that the whole "car bomb near the Lion King" matter could have been averted with more government bailouts of borrowers who weren't paying their bills. That is how the axis of liberal media responds to every act of Muslim terrorism, by blaming Republicans and offering their own policies as the solution.
Worried about airplane hijackings? Elect us, and we'll make the Muslim world love us with hearty doses of appeasement and long deep bows. Afraid of shootings at army bases, vote the right way and we'll pull out all the troops so no more kindly Muslim psychiatrists come down with secondhand PTSD. Worried about car bombs, with more socialism no one will want to car bomb Times Square anymore.
But then Faisal Shahzad ruined everything by opening his mouth. "This is but one life," he said. "If I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah, fighting this cause, defending our lands, making the word of Allah supreme over any religion or system."
The Judge did her usual liberal shtick, foolishly lecturing Shahzad on how moderate Islam is. She suggested that Shahzad should "spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Koran wants you to kill lots of people".
But who knows better what Islam really represents, Faisal Shahzad or Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum? Clearly Miriam thinks she knows better, as Time Magazine and Newsweek and the New York Times insist that they know Islam, better than the Muslims who keep misunderstanding what Islam really is.
But Shahzad wasn't quoting some wacky preacher living in a cave somewhere, he was quoting the Koran. The same book that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested might be illegal to burn. The same book that Democrats and many Republicans insist is really a beautiful book that teaches tolerance. Unlike Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Faisal Shahzad didn't need to spend a whole lot of time thinking about whether the Koran really wants him to kill lots of people. He could just read it...
"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9
That is the source of Faisal Shahzad's justification for his Jihad.
But surely this lovely verse has nothing to do with violence, you might say. It just means that Muslims should go out and persuade people that Islam is the only true religion. That sounds convincing, doesn't it?
Except Koran 61 is titled, "Al-Saff" or "Ranks, Battle Array". That title comes from verse 61:4 which proclaims, "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array". The next two verses go on to curse the Jews, like Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, for their unbelief.
Two verses down from Faisal Shahzad's quote, the Koran promises Muslims a way to save themselves from hell. What's their "Get Out of Hell" free card? "That ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons." The Arabic word used for "strive" is, "watujahidoona" or "You will make Jihad".
Yes. It's the Jihad, stupid.
Faisal Shahzad didn't lose his home to foreclosure because of the injustice of the American banking system. He gave up his home to foreclosure because he was using that money to build a bomb instead. This wasn't some sort of radicalization in response to failure, it was a plan all along.
He led the facade of a normal life. He got a good job and a mortgage. He had a line of credit. And he had Facebook. And then right after he got US citizenship, he quit his job, went to Pakistan for explosives training, and the Times Square Car bombing was set into motion. He didn't lose his home, he abandoned it. The home and the job, and the rest of the facade of the American Dream was a sham, a disguise. Just like the 9/11 hijackers.
Faisal Shahzad was carrying out the words of the Koran, to use his property and person to carry on the Jihad against the unbelievers. His property and money were assets in a religious war.
The media refuses to understand that. Even the judge sentencing him refuses to understand that. Instead Faisal Shahzad is being treated like some sort of stupid child who doesn't know his own religion, even though he has practiced it all his life and probably knows the entire Koran by heart.
Isn't presuming to know what Islam is about better than Muslims do, the same kind of arrogance toward the Muslim world that liberals routinely accuse America of? And doesn't that drive Muslims toward greater acts of terror just to define clearly what Islam really is? In the words of the Ayatollah Khomeni; "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!"
That is the great liberal farce, in which liberals begin by lecturing Americans on what Islam really is, and then conclude by lecturing Muslims on what Islam really is. And the Muslims laugh in their faces, when they aren't blowing them off. Liberals haven't convinced very many Americans that Islam is a religion of peace, and they certainly aren't going to convince very many Muslims....
autosport.com - F1 <b>News</b>: Tweaks to be made to Korean track
Korean Grand Prix organisers are making minor modifications to the new Formula 1 track on Friday night following complaints from drivers about potential trouble spots on the new Yeongam circuit.
Surprise: Fox <b>News</b> signs Juan Williams to new $2 million deal <b>...</b>
Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. ...
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Jobs comments on Java-Mac OS X situation
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Jobs comments on Java-Mac OS X situation. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 22, 2010 at 10:52am. image Apple's announcement that they would be ceasing future development of their ...
eric seiger eric seiger
No comments:
Post a Comment